These have all received high amount of upvotes, and I'm not seeing any evidence of smearing/harassment happening in the comment threads.
>Or harassing them by having their websites deranked and hidden on Google, like what happened to WSWS (among many other "dissident" sites)?
The problem here is that you're lumping fringe/extremist anti-establishment content with mainstream anti-establishment content, and assuming that if the fringe/extremist content is being taken down, it's because it's anti-establishment rather than being fringe/extremist. I've shown counter-examples of anti-establishment content being left up (there's plenty more if you search around), so the original claim of
>Talk about [anti-establishment] and see yourself get delisted from Google, smeared in the media, then get harassed by various agencies until you either flee the country or end up like Hastings or car bombed like Daphne.
>>You mean harassment like calling them, "Russian agents" ?
>Strange, I'm not seeing any of that for the topics mentioned
You've been living in a cave for the last several years if you haven't watched everyone who questioned the narrative about the intelligence agencies and US global military empire smeared as Russian assets, from sitting Congresswomen to Pulitzer Prize winning journalists.
>The problem here is that you're lumping fringe/extremist anti-establishment content with mainstream anti-establishment content,
Who decides what is fringe, you? The CIA? Apparently Youtube though that the video in question was "fringe". Who sets the standard for what information people are allowed to see and hear? For decades it has been the CIA.
>>Talk about [anti-establishment] and see yourself get delisted from Google, smeared in the media, then get harassed by various agencies until you either flee the country or end up like Hastings or car bombed like Daphne.
>is demonstrably false.
A false and predictable assertion from someone who forms their opinions based on an echo chamber of children on reddit. Some of us don't want the rest of the media and the discourse to turn into the same.
>You've been living in a cave for the last several years if you haven't watched everyone who questioned the narrative about the intelligence agencies and US global military empire smeared as Russian assets, from sitting Congresswomen
Is being a congresswomen supposed to be some sort of credential? All it means is you won a popularity contest. Keep in mind there are a few representatives that believe in qanon, so the bar is very low.
>Who decides what is fringe, you? The CIA? Apparently Youtube though that the video in question was "fringe". Who sets the standard for what information people are allowed to see and hear? For decades it has been the CIA.
Why is that question relevant? The initial claim was that espousing anti-establishment views will get you censored and/or receive retaliation, but my examples clearly show that's not the case.
At best, being anti-establishment is a necessary but not sufficient condition for retribution.
>A false and predictable assertion from someone who forms their opinions based on an echo chamber of children on reddit. Some of us don't want the rest of the media and the discourse to turn into the same.
I don't get it, do the threads I've linked not anti- "military industry", "crime financial complex", or "pretexts to war"? Reddit might be biased, but I fail to see how this matters in the context of this arguments.
If a congresswoman was provably a Russian asset, I would think that would be grounds for her immediate, urgent dismissal. The set of congresswomen would then only include women for whom there is no known compelling evidence of the accusation. And I believe they're talking about Tulsi Gabbard, who holds additional relevant credentials.
Also, there are two representatives who believe in Q. One won by coincidence, and the other has publically expressed that they don't believe in Q, having never said they do. They aren't really indicative of congress as a whole.
Strange, I'm not seeing any of that for the topics mentioned:
"military industry": https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/e0b1ui/dwight_d_eis...
"crime financial complex": https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/3r93j0/til_t...
"pretexts to war": https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1aiszn/new_eviden...
These have all received high amount of upvotes, and I'm not seeing any evidence of smearing/harassment happening in the comment threads.
>Or harassing them by having their websites deranked and hidden on Google, like what happened to WSWS (among many other "dissident" sites)?
The problem here is that you're lumping fringe/extremist anti-establishment content with mainstream anti-establishment content, and assuming that if the fringe/extremist content is being taken down, it's because it's anti-establishment rather than being fringe/extremist. I've shown counter-examples of anti-establishment content being left up (there's plenty more if you search around), so the original claim of
>Talk about [anti-establishment] and see yourself get delisted from Google, smeared in the media, then get harassed by various agencies until you either flee the country or end up like Hastings or car bombed like Daphne.
is demonstrably false.